SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 14:31:54 GMT -5
According to the guy who runs the Delaware Preps rivals site, Josh has been working on his driving and his distributing.
He's rotuinely scoring high teens to low twenties, from the updates, but better is the consistent 6-8 assists.
|
|
|
Post by pax on Jan 4, 2005 15:29:20 GMT -5
Greetings. New poster here, so be gentle.
In a Princeton-style offense you'll get a lot of good looks at treys if it is run correctly - especially against a 2-3. I've been a Princeton season ticket holder for about 12 years and, believe me, the running 12 to 15 footer is a rarity except in transition. It has nothing to do with athleticism. As SF noted, the college 3 is the better shot when you are open and smart coaches know that. To be really successful, though, you need big men who can shoot - like Judson Wallace at Princeton. People talk about the back door (in reality only a handful per game and rarely against a zone) but it is the 3-pointer that makes the offense go.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 4, 2005 15:38:51 GMT -5
Greetings. New poster here, so be gentle. In a Princeton-style offense you'll get a lot of good looks at treys if it is run correctly - especially against a 2-3. I've been a Princeton season ticket holder for about 12 years and, believe me, the running 12 to 15 footer is a rarity except in transition. It has nothing to do with athleticism. As SF noted, the college 3 is the better shot when you are open and smart coaches know that. To be really successful, though, you need big men who can shoot - like Judson Wallace at Princeton. People talk about the back door (in reality only a handful per game and rarely against a zone) but it is the 3-pointer that makes the offense go. Great to see the locals chime in... I think you have hit the nail on the head to a degree. The Princeton offense is at its finest against man defense, and it is generally designed to operate under such a condition. Against a zone, the same principles apply in that you seek to move the ball and so forth and move without the ball, but the set pieces are slightly different such that I distinguish between what GU does against the zone and what JT3 seeks to do against man. That said, I agree that we aren't going to see much in between 12 and 15 feet if the offense is run correctly. Princeton disciples love the layup, not the dunk, and want solid perimeter shooting. In terms of big men who can shoot, I am not sure that we'll ever have a center who can step out and hit the three, although I may be wrong. Our current center, Roy Hibbert, is decent from 12-15 feet, but the shot hasn't been there yet except on the free throw line after fouls. Judson Wallace he is not from beyond the arc. Yet, it is clear that Coach Burke is doing some similar things with Hibbert to the extent that he has shown an ability, like Wallace and Princeton centers of yesteryear, to shoot the hook using both hands after a drop step or curl move in the paint. In terms of observing the backdoor, your season tickets paid off. Based on what I learned at Princeton basketball camp, the players go for the backdoor pass when they can see the back of a defender's head. That triggers the cut as players recognize how their men do not see the ball. Why then does the three pointer make the offense go? Well, the backdoor opens up once defenses overcompensate for good shooting and seek to tighten up in a man-to-man setting. In other words, the backdoor is not always there if defenses are playing you honestly.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 15:46:22 GMT -5
I think it'll be really interesting to see if III starts pursuing Judson Wallace-esque big men, or Euros, or whomever.
I agree that in the pure Princeton that you basically want your players interchangeable -- pgs who can post up and centers that can operate at the top of the key.
The problem is that the Princeton is just an offense. Princeton gets away with Judson Wallace-types because they are talented enough to play D in the ivies, and whne they face a non-ivy team, they at least create a mismatch at both ends.
But you're never going to find a skilled, great rebounding center that can hit the three and play great defense in the Big East.
Jeff's a nice compromise, but we've already seen that we'll have trouble rebounding; maybe if you have two Jeff Greens, Brandon Bowman and a couple of good rebounding guards?
I'm sure the Princeton can be adapted to accomodate a mostly post center. I'm also sure we could try to get by without a good defensive center. It'll be interesting to see how III recruits. So far (Fofana, Goodridge) we seem to be leaning towards physically gifted but less skilled.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 4, 2005 16:02:54 GMT -5
On the other hand, it is inconsistent. When we're contending for a BE Title, that will be an issue. For now, I don't really mind living and dying by the three. At least until we go cold. Whoa there. We absolutely have reason to be concerned about living and dying by the three point shot right now. Forget the down the road contending for Big East title projection, this was about competing with a MEAC team. Here's some troubling stats from the Norfolk State game last week: We did not make our first 2-point field goal in the 2nd half (according to the ESPN.com play by play) until there was 8:13 to go. During that time, we shot 12 three pointers, making 4 (33%). Until the make, we shot only 2 times from inside the arc. Two additional times we went to the FT line, presumably in the act of shooting a 2. I should also point out that during this run, we went from a 35-25 halftime lead to the point where our first 2-pt FG was needed to put us back ahead 52-51. Reading recaps of the game from those who were there, I didn't get the impression that folks were happy with the way the offense was running. Seemed to hear a lot about too much passing around the perimeter and not enough assertiveness with off the ball movement and penetration. My position from the first recap I did of the Temple game has been that the offense I have observed in the games I've seen DOES create good looks from three point range. In the Temple game, our lack of offensive success was most closely linked, IMO, to just a bad shooting night with open looks. I contended then, and I still do, that our shooters should take open looks from 3 when they have them. However, they aren't always good looks. I am one of the people that has brought up the issue of too many threes on this board. After one game, I posted the breakdown for all of the guards of how many 2's and 3's they shoot per game. What I tried to point out was it isn't just a matter of them taking 3 pointers a lot, even good ones I'd grant. It's that it's ALL most of them do. If memory serves, the only guard shooting more than once from non-3 range in a game at that point was Ashanti. I said then and I maintain, we cannot be in a situation where our guards are tethered to the 3-point line. We need something more for the offense to truly be credible and keep defenses honest. It's not just the guards' fault--you need the other two/three guys on the court to make the right cuts off the ball, to distribute and receive better, and not to be in foul trouble. But the guards need to at least give the illusion that they are willing to penetrate and create off the dribble. I don't want to turn Jonathan Wallace into Kevin Braswell here. But when our offense goes stagnant for stretches, and it does almost every game without fail, it can usually be linked to the willingness to fall back into the shell of the 3-point field goal. In the end, the important "stat" in this discussion to me is one you can't quantify: how often is the shot we take on our offensive possesions the best one we could get? I just fail to believe shooting a 12-2 (or 12-4 with the pre-FT shots) ratio of 3-pt to 2-pt FGs over 12 minutes means we got the best shot we could most of the time. It's a problem that will get better with more experience and new players with different skill sets, all true. But that doesn't mean it isn't an issue right now. Even the Howard game, we won comfortably, we still went the first 10:15 of the game without a 2-pointer. Shot six 3's at 50%, but only three 2's. And again, at that point the offense wasn't working as well as it could have. The three pointer can be a weapon, but a balanced and multifaceted offense needs to be our strength.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jan 4, 2005 16:23:28 GMT -5
I'll say this until the cow's come home. It doesn't matter how many 3's you shoot or make. If you cannot stop an opponent from taking easy shots, or taking a shot, or if you cannot stop an opponent from 2nd chance shots (defensive rebounding), you will not have success on the basketball court. I'm not concern with shooting or running the "Princeton" offense as much as I am concerned with the team's defense and rebounding. Defense and Rebounding are the keys to winning. 3 pointers are great, but if you cannot defend or rebound, then it is a moot point.
Plus, I keep telling people we don't have outside shooters on this team. You can't teach shooting. Either you can shoot or you can't. Since when has this team, or players from last year's team shown that they can shoot 3 pointers and make outside shots with a decent FG % on a consistent basis (excluding the cream puffs, and meacs of the world as opponents). I think our best shot right now to win is improve our defense and rebounding first, and then the offense.
The history of this team, plus the history of G'Town the last decade and a half is to play zone on us. That is the best way to beat us. We have yet to make a team pay for playing zone against us. I think JTIII is bringing help on the way with 3 point shooting in terms of recruiting, (Josh Thornton,etc.), but right now we don't have any go-to 3 point or outside shooters. We have a few guys who can score (Green, Bowman,Cook), but no pure or consistent outside jump shooters.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 4, 2005 16:30:37 GMT -5
Although I agree on your points about D and rebounds, I am confused about your thoughts on the zone...wouldn't shooting from the perimeter be the best way to crack the zone and force a team into playing man? Seems contradictory or at least confusing to your point.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Jan 4, 2005 16:33:46 GMT -5
_way, I agree.... our defense and rebounding worries me a lot more than our offense does.
When we hold our opponents to 60 or under, we win. anything over that, we have trouble.
We better work on ye olde defense.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 16:42:10 GMT -5
Whoa there. We absolutely have reason to be concerned about living and dying by the three point shot right now. Forget the down the road contending for Big East title projection, this was about competing with a MEAC team. Here's some troubling stats from the Norfolk State game last week: We did not make our first 2-point field goal in the 2nd half (according to the ESPN.com play by play) until there was 8:13 to go. During that time, we shot 12 three pointers, making 4 (33%). Until the make, we shot only 2 times from inside the arc. Two additional times we went to the FT line, presumably in the act of shooting a 2. I should also point out that during this run, we went from a 35-25 halftime lead to the point where our first 2-pt FG was needed to put us back ahead 52-51. Reading recaps of the game from those who were there, I didn't get the impression that folks were happy with the way the offense was running. Seemed to hear a lot about too much passing around the perimeter and not enough assertiveness with off the ball movement and penetration. 4-12 from 3 point? That's twelve points on 12 shots. That's the same as going 6-12 from 2 point. We took 4 two point shotsin that span, making three FTs and missing all the shots (officially 2 FGA). We were MORE efficent from three Our issue during that stretch wasn't shooting, or the shots we were taking. Are 16 points in 11:47 all that troubling? That's about a 55 ppg pace. No, it isn't what you are looking for. So what's the issue here? 1) Not incredibly efficient shooting. We made 1.0 PPS when we average 1.15 -- so we should've probably scored 18 instead of 16 here. At 1.15 PPS, we're the 38th best team in the nation, btw. 2) I counted 7 turnovers or offensive rebounds given up in that span.That's a pace of 24 in a game -- too much for Norfolk State. 3) Norfolk State scored 26 points in that same span. That's on pace for 90 points. It's not that I don't want us to drive, or have a post up player, or fast break more. A well-rounded offense is good and those shots can be high percentage. But when people say the team is struggling -- it isn't the threes that are the problem. They look bad because they are low percent. The real issues -- 1) We turn the ball over too much for a team that plays slow-down ball. Fun stat We have only one game shooting under 30% from 3 this year. 2) Our defense is pretty darn bad. But it is hidden by a slow pace.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 16:51:36 GMT -5
I just fail to believe shooting a 12-2 (or 12-4 with the pre-FT shots) ratio of 3-pt to 2-pt FGs over 12 minutes means we got the best shot we could most of the time. Why is that hard to believe? We don't have a post presence. We don't have great penetrators. If someone goes 2-3 zone, shooting over it is probably our best option right now. I think their decision-making here is fine. If you are saying that we obviously didn't do enough to generate a better 2 point shot, you are probably right. But I'm going to wait to let them get the full offense going. I will say this, though, if we shoot 38% from 3 throughout the BE season, we're probably not taking enough threes. Assuming fouls on 20% of 2 point FGAs, and 70% from the line, to get to the 114 points generated by 38%, you need to shoot 43-80, or 54%. Fouls on the opponent have value, but I just don't see this team shooting 54% from 2. I just think we've found a good balance for how the offense is functioning.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 16:58:14 GMT -5
Plus, I keep telling people we don't have outside shooters on this team. You can't teach shooting. Either you can shoot or you can't. Since when has this team, or players from last year's team shown that they can shoot 3 pointers and make outside shots with a decent FG % on a consistent basis (excluding the cream puffs, and meacs of the world as opponents). I know you are obssessed with this recruiting thing, and think coaches have no impact. I remember well your belief that Esherick was a good coach hampered by horrible recruiting, but this is ridiculous. If you can't teach the fundamentals of shooting, what can you teach? Thompson has had three months with these players. Cook improved from 32% to 40% from 3. Brandon improved from 32% to 38% from 3. Bowman expressly said that the staff has worked on his form. And no shooters? Added to those 2, DJ Owens is shooting 40.5% Wallace is shooting 44%. What the heck are you expecting? (**The team shot very similarly in non-con and in-con from 3)
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 4, 2005 17:25:07 GMT -5
Why is that hard to believe? We don't have a post presence. We don't have great penetrators. If someone goes 2-3 zone, shooting over it is probably our best option right now. I think their decision-making here is fine. If you are saying that we obviously didn't do enough to generate a better 2 point shot, you are probably right. That's what I'm saying, sort of. Actually, I'm "saying" (I didn't see this game in person, but I listen on the radio) that we didn't do enough to generate a better SHOT against NSU--2 point or otherwise. I make this claim because I've seen plenty of other cases in person--the middle 20 minutes of the Temple game, the middle 15 of the Penn State game, the second half of the Illinois game--where we weren't doing enough to create better shots. And the narration is familiar, shall we say. It so happens that a lot of the time the result was a bad 3 taken. But it's just as bad to take an awful 2-pointer. Bad shots are bad shots regardless of where they come from. Same with good ones. Again, the important "stat" as I see it is: did we get the best shot we could on the possession? If that's a 3-pointer, and it often will be, fine by me. Heck, I defended the number of 3's in the Temple game b/c I thought they were good shots. We can have a difference of opinion on the ratio, but I think that misses the point anyhow. It's a quality over quantity issue as I see it. What I will say is that where you claim we don't have a post presence or good penetrators, I would respond "Why not?". Why shouldn't we explore developing Jeff or Roy in the post as a second option? Or allow Ashanti or Ray or Jonathan to penetrate more often? The big one of course is getting the guys to move without the ball and open up better scoring opportunities. Because after all, the most efficient shot of all is the layup/dunk. The way I see it--and this is really what I'm saying--if ALL we're going to do is shoot 3 pointers at a steep clip, no defense worth it's Big East affiliation is gonna be scared. And they'll take us right out of the game for long stretches--defenses after all do adjust. At least opening up second and third options with our offense will in the end make us more credible as a 3-point shooting team because more of those looks will come open.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 4, 2005 18:15:31 GMT -5
I do think we should teach both Jeff and Roy better post moves. Hopefully, as they learn those in practice, it'll translate to the games. I don't know if it is wise to explore that option in the game if it ain't there in practice.
As for driving, I do think we need to do it a bit more, but I'm pretty sure the short term result will be more turnovers. The long term result will be a more well-rounded offense, hopefully.
I'm not saying the offense is perfect. Certainly we can grab more high percentage shots from close to the basket.
But the offense as is has functioned very well. There are really only two reasons I see to do less 3 point shooting:
1) Eventually people will catch on and game plan to stop the three OR we will meet a team that is talented enough to guard the three even without gameplanning
2) Ignoring driving and post play makes your offense erratic.
If we could keep shooting at 38% every game, I'd shoot as many threes as we have.
---------
Our offense has not struggled because of the number of threes we've taken or the rate we've hit them. Maybe we've taken so many threes because of how we've struggled, but because we have shot so well, it has not hurt us at all.
Look to turnovers, defense and rebounding if you are looking for a reason for the losses and struggles.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jan 4, 2005 18:57:51 GMT -5
This obssession with 3 point shooting is obsurd. Its kind of like a pass-happy offense, run-and-shoot offense in football. Looks pretty, but thats not what its going to get it done. Keep bringing up Duke, but Duke also plays stiff, up in your face defense.
AGAIN, if you can't play DEFENSE or REBOUND you will not have success, PERIOD. Shoot your 3 pt brains out with guys who can't shoot the ball. Yeah thats the ticket, that will work in the Big EAST Conference. It will only make the defeats worse. JTIII is a great coach, but our strength is not 3 point shooting. I understand he has to implement this style of play for the future, and will recruit kids to fit that style. This group here doesn't fit that style right now.
Another thing SFHoya99, don't put words in my mouth. I know what I said back then. Get your facts straight before you speak about what I said.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Jan 4, 2005 19:59:46 GMT -5
Alright, now things seem right. the_way is angry again, just like when I started reading this board. It is nice to have constants in life.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jan 4, 2005 20:02:23 GMT -5
I'm not angry FormerHoya. See the smiles. I just don't like it when people have the audacity to put words in my mouth I never spoke.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jan 4, 2005 20:50:08 GMT -5
I'm trying to figure out how we're not good shooters. This team has a bunch of guys who can shoot pretty well. And they're shooting better now that they're coming off more screens or getting kickouts.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jan 4, 2005 23:06:19 GMT -5
I'm trying to figure out how we're not good shooters. This team has a bunch of guys who can shoot pretty well. And they're shooting better now that they're coming off more screens or getting kickouts. Agreed. And coaching has a lot to do with improved shooting in two ways: 1. Working on kids' form, including footwork, legs, balance as well as arm and hand movements. 2. Developing an offense that allows for more open, uncontested shots. It would appear our coaching staff has done both so far. How well this will hold up in BE play? against tougher Defenses? Against conference opponents who have a better opportunity to scout us and some will play us twice? That remains to be seen. But progress so far has been good. All of the above is -- obviously -- only a portion of what the team needs to do. Defense and rebounding (offensive and defensive) are crucial to success as well. And recruiting is also essential. But changing the subject to these other issues doesn't lessen the positive impact of coaching on our offense and our shooting.
|
|
|
Post by Fan Of The Game on Jan 4, 2005 23:34:15 GMT -5
If we shoot 50% or better from 3-pt range against Pitt, we'll win. If we shoot 35% or worse, we'll lose. Anywhere in between, who knows?
Actually I have no idea if that's true, I'm just testing out my new icon.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jan 5, 2005 0:27:50 GMT -5
No one just stands around for a fire drill. I think that you are right in that you want to have a well-rounded team: pass, shoot, post, and drive. But our personnel right now don't lend itself very well that way. BB gets called for offensive fouls 1/2 the time he drives. Cook drives well but doesn't do it often. Wallace isn't quite quick enough. So, we make do with the folks we've got. John Thompson was quoted by Hoya Report as saying that Bowman does not drive as much because of the new system that he has installed. He also admitted that he will have to find a happy balance that allows Bowman to get to the hole more while still playing within the offense, So in other words Bowman and I'm guessing the other returning players are trying to adapt to JT's new offense and are settling for the jumper or overpassing rather than attacking. They are trying to do the right thing; they just happen to have gone overboard. The key is to add the drive and penetration element back as a weapon of choice. By the way what evidence is out there to suggest our defense is so awful? In the three games we lost you could argue that the team stumbled because of long stretches of scoring droughts. Yes, that guard from Temple shot the lights out, but perhaps that was just a lucky game on his part andmaybe it was the result of the Hoyas playing their first game and being rusty. I'm not sure whether or not Oral Roberts shot over 50% as a team against GU, but I do know that if GU had shot better themselves the Hoyas would have been in a position to win. I recall Illinois fans on their website writing the Hoyas were the best or one of the better defensive teams they played so far this season (miles ahead of Wake Forest). So why are a couple of you acting as if we're the Dallas Mavericks?
|
|